SH. MUHAMMAD IRFAN versus SITARA COMMISSION SHOP
A. XXXVII, RR 2 and 3 Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), was issued by a company registered under Section 32 Suite Company Ordinance, 1984 for collection of money on dispute checks, but the company was enforced as a party. Without its directors a lawsuit was filed. The defendants / directors did not refuse to issue the check, but were granted conditional leave which was affirmed by the High Court by the trial court in order to appear and defend the trial case. The party in the plaintiff was not fatal because the defendants had acknowledged their responsibility so their guidance could be objected to after the permit was banned. The leave order was finalized by the defendants in the review filed by the defendants. Supreme Court dismisses plea and upholds leave of appeal in upholding trial court's decision / decision by High Court
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
online advocate from Domeli lawyer
